Can I say I was greatly moved—I was still at school, actually—when the Brandt commission reported? I know this will not recommend it any further to a certain party but, of course, Edward Heath was one of its prime members. It established the 0.7 per cent target of GNP that should be devoted to international aid. As part of that report, it also emphasised, to respond directly to Neil Hamilton, that it wasn’t aid that was the most important thing—though it was a vital thing in transforming people’s lives in the poorest countries—but it was trade that was at the heart of a more just international order. That had a big effect in the 1980s in the GATT rounds, which first broke through, really, the old protectionist systems that had largely held force since the second world war. That itself then led on to the World Trade Organization, which has opened up and transformed international trading, and that’s why the Christian Aid figures that Steffan quoted earlier about massive reductions in world poverty—. When you look at absolute poverty, the reductions are even more astonishing. I know that UKIP, to be fair, are very consistent on this. They deplore what’s happened in terms of the global economy, as well, but it has liberated hundreds of millions of people, because we have a more effective trading system now, internationally. So, it’s trade and aid—that’s what leads to a just international society.

I have to say, Deputy Presiding Officer, that, in the early 1990s, I was responsible for UNICEF’s education work in Wales, and, as part of that, I did visit some projects. I remember the technical assistance I saw in Brazil that was given to street children, particularly in Fortaleza, one of the poorer cities in Brazil then, as now—very close to the equator. I saw a street children project there where the children were helped by UNICEF to run a communal living arrangement, and then the children went out and performed a street circus. Fortaleza is very popular with North American tourists, and these children earned a decent living. Now, if they hadn’t earned a decent and legal living, they were vulnerable to vigilante gangs coming along and murdering them, and it was very important, in particular, that the adolescent children could show society that they were in productive employment. Because, you may give money—and Neil has talked about giving your own money and I’m sure that many people in this Chamber do that and keep that a private thing—to a street child of five or six years of age on a street corner, but let me tell you, you’re less likely to give a 14-year-old or 15-year-old youth on the corner, but perhaps in equal poverty, that assistance. So, the technical assistance I saw was just remarkable.

I also saw a project in Thailand that helped sex workers, and the liberation that that brought them was deeply moving. There was a conference attached to the work that we were viewing there and I was given a briefcase for the conference with a beautiful textile pattern on the front of it, and I used that briefcase for many years when I was first elected to the Assembly. It was very distinctive and I was very proud to tell people when they asked, ‘Where did you get that case?’ So, I think it’s very important that we set this in context.

I am proud that a British Government with cross-party support, if not all-party support, has implemented the 0.7 per cent target. It is something that we should be very, very proud of and that we want to see. We are a leader and other countries are following our example, albeit too slowly.

In the last five or six years, the Department for International Development budget has led to 69.5 million people gaining access to financial services to help them work their way out of poverty. That’s things like microloans to women in Bangladesh. You know, it’s not all about giving immediate aid; it’s about investing in the future: 11.3 million children are in primary and lower secondary schools, nearly half of them girls, because of our budget; we have helped support nearly 400,000 teachers; since 2010, over 67 million children have been immunised because of our people’s money, if I could put it that way, through Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Many of those children would not be alive today if that assistance had not been given. We stand proud of what we’ve achieved and we want to go further.

I think Julie Morgan made reference to the audit procedures. They’re even more robust than Julie had time, actually, to indicate. In the last audit, 0.3 per cent of DFID spending was reported as lost to fraud, of which two thirds was then recovered. So, we lost in the budget 0.01 per cent, and I think that’s what we’ve got to remember—that we have rigorous procedures.

Can I conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer? Britain has been part of the solution in this area. Let’s now not become part of the problem. Reject this shabby motion.